There’s no doubt about the Seahawks need for a quarterback, just as there hasn’t been for some time. But the fact they were willing to make compliance a precondition for employment crystallizes the reality that teams are definitely afraid of angering whatever percentage of their fan base prefers their version of patriotism to civil liberties.

Seahawks are basically the only team to kick his tires other than Baltimore (his girlfriend ruined that opportunity)and now they kicked them wrong. Take away their whole 2018 draft. There must be discipline handed down for it.

They are the employer, and it’s their call if they want that distraction at the workplace. If I knelt in protest during a meeting, I would be escorted out of the building, and have to find a new job. The employee should have to follow the rules at the workplace…

An owner who doesn’t want a guy who kneels during the protest on his team due to the possible backlash and loss of fans does not mean there is a collusion going on. It means owners are afraid that signing a backup QB could cost them millions of dollars of revenue, which makes them good businessmen. Owners have the job of bringing in money for the team, if they feel like there may be a loss somewhere due to a personnel decision then it’s their right as an owner to not sign someone. It doesn’t mean they don’t agree with the reasoning behind the protest, they are protecting their team and ultimately, their wallets.

What collusion? One team has nothing to do with another. Billionaire owner wants to make money, his team his rules. If a player wants to bring his political stance to the field on game day, I wouldn’t hire him either.

It’s called a grassroots effort, and there’s no collusion preventing players from doing that, just no spotlight.

bwahaahahaa! I gotta think he said he’s going to kneel because he doesn’t WANT to be on a field, easier money to be had by suing the NFL and riding off into the sunset. 1st amendment rights don’t mean everyone has to agree with what you’re saying Kap, it comes with some consequence.

Maybe they postponed for some unrelated reason…like a coach or some person needing to be there, couldn’t be there? The world doesn’t revolve around Kap, we all have lives! Also, says “postponed” not “cancelled”.

PFT says: “There’s no reason to ask for a team to ask such a question in a job interview.” Seriously? QB is more than X’s and O’s. It’s about leadership and character and priorities. Are you going to lead the team onto the field to play football or are you going to lead the team in protesting the “pigs”?

I don’t understand when you say ‘since there’s no reason for a team to ask such a question during a job interview.’ If it’s a privately owned team, isn’t it the employer’s right to ask whatever questions he thinks are relevant? This one seems obviously relevant to me because it could impact the perception of their franchise amongst a large group of fans. That could negatively impact consumer support (merchandise sales, ticket sales, etc.). Regardless of how you feel about kneeling during the anthem, I don’t think it’s an unreasonable question to ask. And if they don’t like the answer, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for them to lose interest and move on.

I can think of a reason to ask the question during an interview. How about CK is interviewing for a sports “entertainment” type job and when the customers are not entertained, the need for those services are not needed. It is not covered under any federal EO regulations.

It’s really quite simple. These teams are businesses where the success and health of the organization is defined by how many fans are in their seats, concessions/team gear sold, TV revenue and brand equity that is built.
If any of these components will be impacted by a polarizing protest then it would be foolish to not inquire with a player who participates is said protest. Especially, the one who is leading it. These owners have a fundamental responsibility to protect the long term health of the organization. They aren’t crusaders. They are owners.
They have shown they can be both supportive of this cause and smart businessmen who are bottom line driven. They are just smart enough to find ways to do both (donating money to equality initiatives). Unfortunately, some of these players aren’t as smart so they are still unemployed.
It really is that simple.

I have zero problems at all with protesting and standing up for whatever you believe in. I’m all for it. However, they are protesting…..while AT work. In ANY other industry, you would be terminated. PERIOD.

I support the player’s decision to kneel. I support the owner’s decision to not employ someone whose core values don’t align with their own.

Ultimately, the owners own the team and make the decision, so players will need to think long and hard about what’s more important. Making money for themselves and their families or shining a light on a problem with no solutions.

If I was a player, I’d dedicate my time to making money and then I’d spend my time after my career working on social change. Social inequality isn’t going anywhere, don’t worry.

“the reality that teams are definitely afraid of angering whatever percentage of their fan base prefers their version of patriotism to civil liberties”

– whatever percentage?? I can assure you that percentage is significant enough to impact revenue. Is having a controversial backup worth the hit to your reputation? or even worse your bottom line?

– their version of patriotism?? It’s pretty simple, the anthem honors those who have sacrificed life and limb in the defense of America. What is the other version of patriotism you seem to be referring to?

The whole issue isn’t about suppressing 1st amendment rights, it’s about the manner in which they are choosing to express their 1st amendment rights; by insulting those who have served.

Employers should have the right to ask any question during the hiring process. The employee represents the company and could influence customers. If you don’t like the questions get a job somewhere else.

“since there’s no reason for a team to ask such a question during a job interview.”

Of course there is reason to ask this question which you mention a paragraph later…

“The reality that teams are definitely afraid of angering whatever percentage of their fan base prefers their version of patriotism to civil liberties.”

It’s not collusion just because 32 separate teams decided they don’t want the biggest media cancer to ever hit the NFL in their locker room. Yes he is a bigger cancer than Ray Rice when it comes to media frenzy and diatractions.Nobody want that headache…

Kapp’s Collusion case is like saying the league is colluding against multiple drug or domestic violence offenders. You don’t let negative influence people on your team. They’re going to have to find a real left wing judge for this case.

“But the fact they were willing to make compliance a precondition for employment crystallizes the reality that teams are definitely afraid of angering whatever percentage of their fan base prefers their version of patriotism to civil liberties.”

teams are definitely afraid of angering whatever percentage of their fan base prefers their version of patriotism to civil liberties.
——-
Forgetting the fact that demonstrating or protesting at work isn’t a civil liberty bud…

PFT says: “There’s no reason to ask for a team to ask such a question in a job interview.” Actually the NFL rules allow the league to punish a team if players do not stand during the Anthem. The fact they don’t enforce the rule doesn’t mean they won’t. So a team is within their legal rights to ask if a player who has previously disregarded the rule plans on continuing that behavior.

Teams are asking because they have a brand to sell. They are in business to make money first and foremost. Why would you want to hire an employee that hurts your chances of making money? What company would hire that person?

No need to ask such a question? An employer should ask any question he sees fit to make sure that a prospective employee fit the image that the employer wants put forward. Especially when it can negatively impact their bottom line.

Kap kneeled so me, my children and people who look like me don’t have to live in fear whenever interacting with law enforcement. So thankful for this guy taking a stance against something that’s plagued African American communities for 100s of years. Continue to fight the good fight Mr. Kaepernick, we’re rooting for you.

Asking someone if they will stand for the National Anthem in NO way violates their civil liberties!

As an employer, if my potential future employee plans on performing any act or actions which might make my customers choose to spend their money or time elsewhere…..that is an issue.

If you want to protest or fight for social justice causes feel free to use your personal time and not while performing the duties I pay you millions a year to perform. If this causes you to choose to work elsewhere then so be it.

You word think guys who went to college could comprehend this. But I guess not.

There is a reason for teams to ask such questions…. they are private enteprises and as such can hire whomever the heck they want as long as race, creed etc arent involved. The 1st ammendment is NOT protected in a private workplace and political viewpoints are NOT protected either…..

It’s a legitimate question from the owner of the team that is about to pay someone millions of dollars. This is the NFL, not some run-of-the-mill factory or customer service based job (no disrespect) and if the owner wants to ask that question of whether or not you’re going to kneel for the National Anthem, they are allowed to ask the question as much as the player doesn’t have to answer the question. If the owner in turn doesn’t want to employ you, that’s also well within his rights. Everything else is just OPINION.

“. . . it does nothing to lessen Kaepernick’s collusion case, since there’s no reason for a team to ask such a question during a job interview.”

Sometimes the things written on this site are mind-bogglingly incomprehensible.
The vast majority of business in this country prohibit their employees from demonstrating or pushing their political views or personal causes on company time.
There is all kinds of anecdotal and statistical evidence that the NFL, a $10 billion-dollar-per-year business entity, saw a large portion of its fan (aka customer) base angered, and its ticket sales and TV viewership decline over the kneeling issue.
During an interview, any NFL team sure as hell has the right to ask that question when interviewing the instigator of the entire issue. They have a right to know whether, if hired, he will he continue a practice that’s bad for their business, and they have the right to not hire him if he answers in the affirmative.

“If the Seahawks hesitated because of concerns about his political stance, it does nothing to lessen Kaepernick’s collusion case, since there’s no reason for a team to ask such a question during a job interview.”

I do not agree with this, unless I misunderstand the definition of collusion… i.e. NFL teams meeting in a smoke filled room to reach a collaborated plan of action. What both the Seahawks and Bengals stories tell me is these teams want to avoid players who bring negative attention to the team, fracture their fanbase, etc. I see this as a decision that on its face it a singular team PR decision. That should be allowed regardless of what it is that causes PR controversy. Just like any employer should.

We ask athletes to use their platforms for good, right? So why are we denouncing Kaepernick for kneeling for equality? The only justifiable reason for disliking Kaepernick is racism, it has nothing to do with football. When people bring up football, they forget he led a team to the Super Bowl. How many quarterbacks have done such? How many active quarterbacks have more playoff wins then Kap? Romo retired without more.

The NFL is a business. The fans are its customers. I know that if I used my job to push a political agenda with my companies clients I would be fired and likely black-balled – regardless of how right or wrong I was.

It’s not a question of freedom of speech, it’s about when the appropriate time to exercise that freedom is. Football is entertainment. Politics and entertainment aren’t always good together.

The job of any business owner is to maximize profits. It doesn’t take a “conspiracy” for any owner to see what Kap brings to the table and ask the very simple question – does his skill outweigh the cost of potential lost fans due or discord for something that has nothing to do with the product I am selling? It would appear the most obvious answer that question is NO.

Do it on your own time. Do it on Twitter. Protest all you want. Just don’t do it at work. Everyone wins.

But the fact they were willing to make compliance a precondition for employment crystallizes the reality that teams are definitely afraid of angering whatever percentage of their fan base prefers their version of patriotism to civil liberties…..Darin Gantt

Perfectly stated. This is not about patriotism. This is about cilvil liberty and discourse. Not whether you “support the troops”.

You can easily do both. As I do.

As the father and son of Army Rangers. Both of whom support the full, unfettered use of free speech. That’s what they served for.

If Kaepernick was signed by Seattle, he would have an opportunity to reframe the original message, instead the message is about kneeling, troops and patriotism….and obviously is ok with that. Calling BS.

asking a job candidate if they plan on doing specific things on company hours that have the potential to damage your brand is completely reasonable.

I’ve said it before and I will say it again….it is the incessant media coverage over player protests that has owners shaky, nothing more. when a team’s play on the field is way down on the list of things to talk about, the teams lose.

You can disrespect the flag, hate our country, and openly support foreign dictators like Castro. You can even call it “patriotism” with a straight face, apparently. But don’t expect people to pay $300 a ticket to come see it.

1. You apply for a job with the CIA as a spy. They ask during the interview whether you plan on selling secrets to the Russians. You refuse to answer.

2. You apply for a job with a hospital as a brain surgeon. They ask during the interview whether you will properly clean your hands before performing a brain operation. You refuse to answer.

3. You apply for a job with a construction company as a backhoe operator. They ask during your interview whether you will strictly adhere to safety guidelines when operating dangerous equipment. You refuse to answer.

4. You apply for a job as an airline pilot. They ask during your interview whether you will put the safety or your passengers and aircraft foremost and not show up to fly reeking of alcohol. You refuse to answer.

5. Since you have been unable to get a job, you apply for unemployment benefits. During your intake appointment, they ask if you will notify them if you acquire a job and no longer need unemployment benefits. You refuse to answer.

Where did Schefter get his information? Did he verify it or did he just use a single unnamed source as fact? I’m guessing the latter since conflicting accounts are already emerging. Ah well, can’t let something like the truth get in the way of grabbing headlines and attention.

Teams downt want distractions, regardless of what the stance or purpose of the protest is. Tebow was a distraction, some players are on field distractions others are off field. Some people dont want political posts on a football website. They have the option to not visit the site and nfl teams have the option to avoid distractions.

Should players protest mlk day at nfl games because mlk was very pro choice?

Not giving him a job because he is black would be a problem.
Not giving him a job because they don’t agree with his political views is a problem.
Not giving him a job because he said he is going to use that job to express his political view which you know will upset your consumer is smart business.

I couldn’t disagree more. Kaepernick is NOT a protected class when it comes to questioning if he would embarrass the team by further kneeling for our National Anthem and Flag. It’s his right to kneel if he wants. And it’s everyone else’s right, who disagrees with his approach, to decide they don’t want to associate with a radical protester. The only issue is if the owners coordinated this “opinion”. But why would anyone be surprised that 32 very old billionaires would naturally have similar opinions relative to this issue? Do you really think that any of them (or at least very few) would willingly hire someone that they know is going to crap on their golden egg? That’s just stupid, and you don’t have to collude for that to be the prevalent opinion!

If the Seahawks hesitated because of concerns about his political stance, it does nothing to lessen Kaepernick’s collusion case
______________________________________________________
And it does ZERO to enhance his case. Quit with the false narrative. Every employer in the world has the right to ask a question about behavior of a potential employee as it relates to offending their customers.

But Mike Brown and his customers are cool with Vontaze Burfict being suspended every year, drafting players who have been caught punching a woman in the face and breaking her jaw…..And the Seahawks are cool with Frank Clark’s past with domestic violence.

I have to think Seattle fans are a little more progressive than that. They may still hate Kap as a player, but lets go ahead and stop acting like this is a big deal to us as fans. I don’t see anyone not watching football or paying attention because of a player exercising his right to free speech. It may upset you (it shouldn’t) but lets grow up a little and recognize wrong (violence) and someones rights (free speech). Especially when these guys are putting their money where the mouth is and actually making a difference. Mind blown that this is still an issue, especially when half of the stadium doesn’t pay attention to the national anthem while they’re eating their hot dog.

It doesn’t “lessen” his case nor does it strengthen it. Clearly there was backlash by fans over the behavior. So teams have a right to expect compliance. A long as no agreement between 2 or more was made to prevent his hire all 32 teams CAN ask AND can choose to NOT hire him on the basis of it. It is not his constitutional bright to protest the flag while on the job.

How bout you prevent reporters at the team facilities from asking political questions and just stick to football. If they don’t bring it up, then it won’t get talked about and he can stick to discussing football

“It’s pretty simple, the anthem honors those who have sacrificed life and limb in the defense of America.”

The anthem is not the property of veterans, the military, or of fallen soldiers. It belongs to every American, and is meant to represent every American. Veterans are not better or worse than non-veterans. They are not more or less American.

I’m somewhat confused on how teams think signing Kaepernick would be 100 percent bad for business. As soon as he signs a large demographic of African American fans would not only begin to root for the Seahawks but the amount of money the team would make off his merchandise would be astronomical. Yes, there’s a large demographic of inherently racist football fans who don’t support him or his cause — which is mind-boggling. But there’s also a demographic of kind-hearted football fans who actually care about the lives of players off the field and the greater good of this country. This would honestly help the Seahawks from a marketing standpoint. A whole demographic of people would be behind this.

ummm NFL is a private business… so if the owner tells you to do something while getting paid, you do so. I think it the NFL is a public company there is more guidelines they have to follow. IDK Will have to freshin up on actual labor laws

“There’s no reason for a team to ask such a questions during a job interview.”
That’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. Apparently the Bengals and Seahawks and possibly some other teams don’t share your opinion.

“If the Seahawks hesitated because of concerns about his political stance, it does nothing to lessen Kaepernick’s collusion case, since there’s no reason for a team to ask such a question during a job interview.”

They can ask any question they want, short of “protected status” questions (eg, race, sexual orientation, etc).

The NFL lawyers will destroy Kaepernick’s case with a few sets of graphs. The first set will be the viewership numbers before and after the kneeling. The next will be polls taken by various companies detailing the reasons millions stopped watching and the #1 reason in every poll will be kneeling during the anthem. The third set will be of lost revenue. The lawyers will look at the judge and ask basic questions like “Would you knowingly hire an employee that is actively trying to undermine your company?”. If that’s not enough, they’ll bring up the Seattle contract offer from July 2017 and how he willingly and knowingly declined it. The case will be quickly dismissed.

It isn’t collusion that occurred here. This was purely a business decision that is very defendable. Kap, by not willing to capitulate to any team’s desire regarding action’s potentially offending the team fans, has only himself to blame for not being employed.

Kapepernick is all about his lawsuit now. I have represented many clients like that, whose whole life is consumed by it, and every life decision, even whether to get serious medical treatment, is made only after considering how it will affect the lawsuit.

Even in crazy liberal Seattle, they are worried about a fan backlash, and rightfully so. If wanted a job at my law office, and their political stances would hurt my bottom line, I would of course not hire them. The NFL has every right to not hire those that would hurt their business. It is really no different than not hiring a QB that can’t play.

He is getting bad advice from those with political agendas and those who want to invalidate the CBA and negotiate a better deal for the players. Yeah right. The players will easily scream and cry about Trump, but if you think they are going to miss a payday over Trump, or Kaepernick, you are kidding yourselves.

With the Bengals already having so many holes in their fan base boat, can they really afford to sink it entirely by adding this guy? However, I still contend that owners seem to look the other way a little more if they feel the player can help there team significantly. It’s a little hypocritical. Bengals have enough controversary with players (Burfict, Mixon and so on) and they don’t need more bad PR with this guy. Thank you Mr. Brown for doing your due diligence on this one.

At least give Seattle props for exposing themselves to this ‘radioactive’ player. Honesty is the best policy. I am sick of ‘political’ correctness. Give Kap props for being honest. He needs to move on to Washington D.C. so he can pursue his true passion there.

In baseball, you must be able to hit the curve ball or pitch and win games AND maintain “good character” as defined by MLB. It is the employer’s prerogative.
In basketball, you must be able to make you hoops or rebound AND maintain “good character” as defined by NBA. It is the employer’s prerogative.
In football, you must be able to read defenses and complete passes or run the ball for yards or catch the ball for yards or defense passes, or hit, stop, and push around opposing players AND maintain “good character” as defined by MLB. It is the employer’s prerogative.

When has declining to hire disruptive employees become collusion just because other employers recognize they want to avoid problem prospects as well?

If an employer chooses to have employees participate in a public moment of political observance, they have no right to take umbrage with the views that get expressed in that moment. Doing so would be allowing political speech by some but not all employees, which is a violation of federal law under Title VII. It’s pretty cut and dry, as is the fact that conservatives don’t actually care for free speech.

The whole employer told you, you can’t peacefully protest against inequalities in everyday life ideology sounds a lot like the Slave Master-Slave complex. Yes, we want you to bleed for us, sacrifice your body and your health, but no you can’t speak out against inequalities and things that plague you and people who look like you in everyday life.

youngnoizecom says:
We ask athletes to use their platforms for good, right?
==

We ask them to use THEIR platforms, not their employers’ platform. The First Amendment, which only applies to a citizen’s relationship with the government, allows people to have their own platform, not to hijack someone else’s.
Colin Kaepernick has a platform because he’s a high-profile athlete. On his own time, he can use his name to protest in front of City Hall or on the steps of the police station. He could organize a parade, run for public office, write letters to the editor, run free clinics or camps focusing on his message, take out ads in newspapers, or one of a million other “positive” things. As a white man I would applaud him for his efforts and conviction, even if I didn’t completely agree with his message.
But doing those things on his own time would make him or any other kneeler do all the work, and might not get the exposure the want. Their employer has built-in TV exposure and a large audience, so it’s much easier and requires much less effort to appropriate the league’s platform. Then they whine and cry racism when said employer’s business is hurt and they lose their jobs as a result.

No reason to ask such a question during a job interview? Your kidding right? NFL is still a business, I think they have a right to ask basically “Do you intend to CONTINUE to engage in activity that will infuriate half my customers, drive my team apparel and memorobilia sales into the toilet, and completely distract from the coaching staff and other players ability to win football games?”

“If the Seahawks hesitated because of concerns about his political stance, it does nothing to lessen Kaepernick’s collusion case“

Actually it destroys the collusion case. Because it shows that teams are in fact allowing each other to evaluate him to see if he is a good fit. If he doesnt oass the evaluation thats unfortunate but that is not what ‘being blackballed’ means.

Do we think it is ok for an employer to ask one of the people identified in the Charlottesville march whether they still affiliate with white supremacy groups?

Because in both situations, you are asking a potential employee with a history of political speech that is potentially detrimental to your bottom line whether or not they intend to continue such political speech in the future.

The only difference is how you feel about that speech. While that should influence your hiring decision, it does not influence whether you are legally allowed to ask that question. Ask a real labor lawyer (I asked the ones in my office). It is a frowned-upon line of questioning, but not an unlawful one.

“Yes, there’s a large demographic of inherently racist football fans who don’t support him or his cause — which is mind-boggling.”

Why is it that every left leaning idiot will automatically call anyone racist that has a different opinion they they do about patriotism or social justice. And while we’re on the subject, issues that the players are “trying” to trumpet are NOT racial injustices, they are social class injustices and are not limited to African Americans, but are experienced by everyone that does not enjoy the benefits of being well off financially.

So if I am interviewing a person and ask “So your last company was casual dress but here it is mandatory that everyone wears a tie, are you going to be willing to make that change” how is that not a fair question? And if he says “No, I refuse to wear a tie because its against my priciples“ where am I wrong if I decide then that he is not a good fit? Am I not allowed to worry about the image he presents to customers and clients? I’m not worrying about what he does with his beliefs or anything, Im simply worrying about the image he projects for my organization during the times he is representing it.

Just a question… so would you be good if your employer started asking you who you voted for? what your stand on the 2nd Amendment was? We live in America. If you aren’t breaking any laws then do what you will. I am for FREE SPEECH and ACTION even if it offends me because I am an adult. RESPECT THE CONSTITUTION

“teams are definitely afraid of angering whatever percentage of their fan base prefers their version of patriotism to civil liberties.”

“Their” version of patriotism? I didn’t realize that being patriotic had a “version”. Civil liberties are certainly worth considering in any context, but weighing ones’ job responsibilities against openly disrespecting a nation’s flag during “working hours” seems a lot less an issue of question.

Would any of you risk your own job by openly portraying yourself as an advocate of any political or civil issue if it meant causing your employer undue angst? You took that position because you felt qualified, and your employer engaged you because you seemed to fit the bill due to your talent level, track record, and loyalty to the company et al.

Weather or not one agrees with the governmental leader in power ( regardless of party ), offering a obvious ( or even latent ) personal position of your choice during the time that you are getting paid by said employer comes off as being disgruntled and reflects negatively on your ability to complete the terms of your employment. If one chooses to protest, kneel, or conduct a march during their own time then that should not be an issue…but doing so during a period of time when you are being paid and openly representing your employer’s company should be off limits. Ask yourself if your particular employer would tolerate a public controversy while YOU were on the clock.

Regardless of one’s “brand of patriotism”, disrespect of the time you are expected to represent your employer by utilizing that paid time slot to exercise your own personal views shows no concern for that employer. It is a “brand” of disloyalty most employers would not approve.

There IS a reason to ask that question. In fact, there is no reason not to ask that question. NFL teams rely on the support of their fans. If someone is going to antagonize the majority of those fans, it is a perfectly legit reason to not offer said person employment.

Pro Football is entertainment and the players are the entertainers, and their bosses rely on the gum-chewing public (us) to fill their coffers.

If these entertainers insist on kneeling before the game – that is their right, and it is the right of their employers to know beforehand about that, because it is we (the gum-chewing public) who buy the tickets, the semi-cold beer, the lukewarm hot dogs, the overpriced souvenirs, the $25 parking places a 30 minute walk from the stadium, etc.

And if we know these people are going to kneel, we might get po’ed enough that we don’t come to the game.

Just a question… so would you be good if your employer started asking you who you voted for? what your stand on the 2nd Amendment was? We live in America. If you aren’t breaking any laws then do what you will. I am for FREE SPEECH and ACTION even if it offends me because I am an adult. RESPECT THE CONSTITUTION
==================================================

Would you be good if you were eating in a restaurant and the waiters got up and started chanting “build that wall” in front of all the customers?

scott64836 says:
April 12, 2018 at 2:47 pm
You don’t want a job bad enough if kneeling is still your priority. Good luck with that elsewhere!!

————————-
Honestly I question whether he wants the job. Just like when the Ravens were considering him until Nessa started blasting the owner, each time a team is considering him something happens from his side that kills the deal. My own suspicion is that if he ever gets on a field the real reason he is not a starting QB will get exposed. Its only my own opinion but I do think he likes the martyr image and doesn’t want to see it destroyed.

In the age of businesses being sued over their religious beliefs and being destroyed on social media. Where certain writers or political opinion makers has their advertising slashed via SJW mob mentality. And on campus where if you don’t conform you have no safe space to go to. Why in the good lords name, would it be wrong for a employer not wanting to get mixed up in all that nonsense?

CK while in SF, drove home to a 2mill house in a predominantly white neighborhood where the average house costs 1.2+ million dollars. That is oppression in 2018. Where slaves live better than the customers who make them millionaires.

Many teams are not owned outright by one person but with minority stakeholders. The CEO has a legal responsibility to protect their investments. NOT asking very relevant questions such as these could expose the to very serious legal consequences. It’s not the same thing as asking about their religion or sexual orientation.

Just a question… so would you be good if your employer started asking you who you voted for? what your stand on the 2nd Amendment was? We live in America. If you aren’t breaking any laws then do what you will. I am for FREE SPEECH and ACTION even if it offends me because I am an adult. RESPECT THE CONSTITUTION
==================================================

Would you be good if you were eating in a restaurant and the waiters got up and started chanting “build that wall” in front of all the customers?

====================================================

Good Question.. I have to think on it… my first reaction is no I wouldn’t. I see your point though. I guess I liken it to the Michael Sam situation more. Employers shouldn’t be able to ask a player if he or she is gay. Even if it was public and the fan base would react poorly to having a gay player on the team. It would cause some fans in some arena’s to not support the team. I look at it as that is there problem. I will think more on what you said though because I see the dilemma it presents

“But the fact they were willing to make compliance a precondition for employment crystallizes the reality that teams are definitely afraid of angering whatever percentage of their fan base prefers their version of patriotism to civil liberties””

___________________________________

“Their version” … that’s cute. Keep pretending the people offended by the protests are in the minority. Don’t let reality get in the way.

buffalosunshine says:
April 12, 2018 at 2:56 pm
Just a question… so would you be good if your employer started asking you who you voted for? what your stand on the 2nd Amendment was? We live in America. If you aren’t breaking any laws then do what you will. I am for FREE SPEECH and ACTION even if it offends me because I am an adult. RESPECT THE CONSTITUTION
==

Apples and oranges.
No one but me knows who I voted for or how I stand on the 2nd Amendment, therefore those things would not hurt a prospective employer’s business in any way. Any employer would have little or no reason to ask those questions – unless maybe I applied for work with a gun manufacturer/seller, in which case he might have the right in my opinion.
Espousing your political views on company time can be very bad for an employer’s business, so he or she does have the right ask those questions, especially if the applicant has already done that very thing with demonstrable negative results.
As for “respecting the Constitution,” I do. I also know what it says, something you apparently do not. The First Amendment is a Constitutional guarantee that outlines a citizen’s relationship with the GOVERNMENT, PERIOD!
It means the government, with certain exceptions, cannot stifle my free speech. It does not cover me from the consequences of my actions in the public sector, where others – including employers – also have rights.

All the people who say teams don’t factor kneeling into player acquisition yet again celebrating teams that factor kneeling into player acquisition.

Still mind boggling.

++++++++++++++++++++++

This is a good point. You can say well it is the employers right to not have him on the team because it will turn off paying customers.. but denying it has anything to do with that is just foolishness. You got teams going to see Johnny Football a guy who beat his girl friend, flipped off the crowd etc and Kaep still can’t get a job? Please. he may not be the best or even close to the best but he can’t hold a clip board?

If the Seahawks hesitated because of concerns about his political stance, it does nothing to lessen Kaepernick’s collusion case, since there’s no reason for a team to ask such a question during a job interview.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
You guys are delusional. Kaepernick gave them reason to ask that specific question through his own actions. His antics cost the league fans and sponsors and thus potential profits. An employer has a right to ask if a prospective employee will engage in future behavior (he has already demonstrated) that could negatively impact the company brand or profits. They also have the right to not hire someone based on that determination. If the issue was about behavior on his own time you would have more of a point, however, many companies have suspended or terminated employees for things done on the person’s free time. As an employer I am not obligated to hire someone who undermines my brand and I certainly am not going to hire someone who is actively pursuing a frivolous lawsuit against me in an effort to boost their own personal brand.

youngnoizecom says:
April 12, 2018 at 3:02 pm
I keep seeing people try to politicize this topic. This isn’t about democrats/republicans, it’s about basic human rights and equality for all people.
————————

pftidbro says:
April 12, 2018 at 3:15 pm
“But the fact they were willing to make compliance a precondition for employment crystallizes the reality that teams are definitely afraid of angering whatever percentage of their fan base prefers their version of patriotism to civil liberties””

___________________________________

“Their version” … that’s cute. Keep pretending the people offended by the protests are in the minority. Don’t let reality get in the way.

0 0 Rate This

——————-

Well, they are in the minority based on demographic facts. The ratings dip has very little to do with a few guys kneeling before an anthem that most fans don’t even see on their tv screens.

The owners and Goodell are the same people who told us the ratings dip was tied to the 2016 election. lmao

No, the ratings are dropping for a variety of reasons, but mainly due to cheating from Park Ave and the pathetic drama/baggage that comes with it.

This is just an easy way for owners to captuer “low hanging fruit”, so to speak.

They’ve dug their own graves by destroying the sport and people thinking these games are manipulated or attempted to be manipulated by Goodell.

Bank of America has the right, to cut off lines of credit to gun manufacturers. Facebook and YouTube has the right to filter and censor opposing political thought. Universities have the right to deny opposing views on campus. And the NFL and all 32 INDIVIDUAL owners have a right to decide what they will allow on their stage in their brand before a National audience.

I love seeing the half wits reduce Kaepernick’s plight to something akin their own mundane existence. “Well, geez, if he applied for a bottom feediing job like mine he’d never get a second look.” You see the thing is Biff, he’s not like you. He’ll never pay to watch what you do, but realities beyond your control dictate that you might very well pay to watch what he does. And if you choose not to, someone else will pay. He matters. You don’t matter. If you took a knee during the anthem we’d never know. Regardless of his politics, Kaepernick is just better than you.

I work in finance, and I know full well I could piss on the flag and not lose a cent. Because I’m good what I do and what’s matters is outcomes and results. You live in a meritocracy. I’m sorry you’re average.

A true patriot is defiant, disruptive, and feels so strongly about his convictions that he’s brave enough to not merely take action, but accept the consequences, whatever they may be.
You conveniently left out that last part, probably because today’s social justice warriors talk a good game, but act dumfounded when they find out their actions come with consequences. How unfair! (stomps feet and holds breath).
After taking a stand for what he believed in, Nathan Hale allegedly (but probably not) said he regretted that he had but one life to give for his country, before sticking his head in a British noose.
Colin Kaepernick took a stand against his country (OK, fine). Then he sued — not his country, but his employer — because it wouldn’t let him have HIS way on THEIR time.
Defiant and disruptive? Sure. A patriot, my caboose.

“I guess I liken it to the Michael Sam situation more. Employers shouldn’t be able to ask a player if he or she is gay.”

Here we are comparing apples and oranges again. Someone’s sexual identity qualifies as a protected class. That “is” protected by the constitution and the Supreme Court has ruled as such. But asking someone if they plan on protesting in a company uniform while they are on the clock, being paid by that employer, is NOT a protected class and a company is within their right to not hire a person that answers in a way they don’t like. The only thing the employer can’t do is call up a bunch of companies in that industry and convince everyone to agree and freeze the person out of employment. If all the companies happen to have the same opinion on there own – there is no law against it! Period.

“You can bet that the men and women we honor today, and those who died that fateful morning 75 years ago, never took a knee and never failed to stand whenever they heard our national anthem being played,” he said.

It is about work place behavior and image?? so why can you be a drug user, woman beater etc and still have a job? You keep thinking Kaep is a bad guy and go ahead and bye your Big Ben jerseys. It is funny what people are able to over look if they don’t care about a topic.

youngnoizecom says:
I don’t think you can whine and cry racism in an inherently racist country.
==

Sure you can. A lot of people do it every day. You’re doing it right now.
This absolutely IS a racist county. The problem is, we’ll never solve or end racism until we ALL admit to ourselves that racism exists within EVERY race.
The worn-out, tired old cliché that most white people are inherently racist, and all or most blacks aren’t racists but merely victims, is one of the largest reasons racism persists.
You will probably tell me the old fairytale that only whites can be racist and blacks are merely prejudiced. I’ll respond that it must be very convenient to have, from birth onward, a built-in excuse for every single failure and every perceived slight in life — real or imagined. No need for personal responsibility, just a one-size-fits-all bogeyman to blame.

It’s funny how protected celebrities and famous pro-athletes are. If Kaep thinks he has it bad and other’s agree with him, then people would give the chair to my bosses for how they’ve treated me in the past. The boss is the boss. The owner gets to choose what their players do. The discussion should end at that point.

buffalosunshine says:
April 12, 2018 at 5:31 pm
It is about work place behavior and image?? so why can you be a drug user, woman beater etc and still have a job? You keep thinking Kaep is a bad guy and go ahead and bye your Big Ben jerseys. It is funny what people are able to over look if they don’t care about a topic.
—————————

While I agree with you that the workplace rules are a bit whack here, its still the owners free right to set them how he sees fit, and expect them to be followed, and to not employ a person who does not care to follow them. Frankly an owner can decide not to employ a guy because his last name starts with a vowel. He can opt not to employ a guy and say its nobodys business why. He is the owner.

emphraser says:
April 12, 2018 at 4:08 pm
I love seeing the half wits reduce Kaepernick’s plight to something akin their own mundane existence. “Well, geez, if he applied for a bottom feediing job like mine he’d never get a second look.” You see the thing is Biff, he’s not like you. He’ll never pay to watch what you do, but realities beyond your control dictate that you might very well pay to watch what he does. And if you choose not to, someone else will pay. He matters. You don’t matter. If you took a knee during the anthem we’d never know. Regardless of his politics, Kaepernick is just better than you.

I work in finance, and I know full well I could piss on the flag and not lose a cent. Because I’m good what I do and what’s matters is outcomes and results. You live in a meritocracy. I’m sorry you’re average.

————————
I do question whether you could piss on the flag as a public representative of your organization and not get fired. You would have to be incredible at your job. Not just merely good, I mean so good it generates tons of revenue that the next guy couldnt do.